Message-ID: <4DEE2CB2.8000908@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:50:42 -0400
From:	Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@...il.com>
To:	"Amir G." <amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net>
CC:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/30] Ext4 snapshots - core patches

On 06/07/2011 09:01 AM, Amir G. wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Lukas Czerner<lczerner@...hat.com>  wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Amir G. wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Andreas Dilger<adilger@...ger.ca>  wrote:
>>>> On 2011-06-06, at 2:55 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 10:31:33AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>>>>> For one reason, a snapshot file format is currently an indirect file
>>>>>>> and big_alloc doesn't support indirect mapped files.
>>>>>>> I am not saying it cannot be done, but if it does, there would be
>>>>>>> several obstacles to cross.
>>>>>> I know I'm kind of just throwing a bomb out here, but I am very concerned
>>>>>> about the ever-growing feature (in)compatibility matrix in ext4.
>>>>> bigalloc doesn't support indirect blocks mainly because it was faster
>>>>> to get things working if I didn't have to worry about indirect blocks.
>>>>> It wouldn't be _that_ hard to make bigalloc work on indirect blocks.
>>>>> I'll get around to it at some point.
>>>> My main concern isn't about whether bigalloc grows support for indirect-
>>>> mapped files, but rather the opposite - that snapshots gain support for
>>>> extent-mapped files.  In fact, since extent-mapped files can be 16TB in
>>>> size, it might make sense that the snapshots are _always_ extent-mapped
>>>> files, and we don't need to deal with the new block-mapped files with
>>>> 4-triple-indirect blocks layout at all?  Since snapshots are only going
>>>> into ext4, and ext4 + e2fsprogs already support extents, there wouldn't
>>>> be any issue about compatibility?
>>>>
>>>> The only concern might be that mapping fragmented files into extents is
>>>> more effort, which makes me wonder about whether we should introduce the
>>>> "block-mapped extents" that I proposed in the past, to allow efficient
>>>> mapping of files (or parts thereof) that are highly fragmented, but still
>>>> keeping the benefits of extents (internal redundancy, 48-bit physical
>>>> block numbers, and while we are adding a new extent format it could be
>>>> designed to add 48-bit logical block numbers.
>>>>
>>> You are right about snapshot file being a highly fragmented file by design,
>>> so single block mapping is an advantage. The down side is that deleting
>>> an extent mapped file, requires mapping all blocks one-by-one to snapshot
>>> file, which is not efficient and makes deletes slow.
>>> So having a format optimized for both single and multi block mapping would be
>>> best.
>>>
>>> The reason I DO NOT want to change the snapshot file format at this moment
>>> is that it will make us lose all the stabilization that snapshot feature gained
>>> during 1 year in production as next3.
>>> You see, ext4_free_blocks() cares not if blocks are deleted from indirect or
>>> extent mapped files and from there on, the code that maps those blocks to
>>> the special snapshot file is the same in next3 and ext4.
>>>
>> But the problem is, that you will not be able to change it in the future
>> or at least not without adding more incompatibility flags, which is
>> exactly the point of this thread. I just wonder if it would not be
>> better to do it now, because now is the right time. Although I do not
>> know how much work will that require.
>>
> There are no compatibility issues.
> ext4 fs is either 32bit or 64bit and you cannot convert between the 2 formats.
> 32bit ext4 has snapshots support with indirect mapped snapshot files.
> 64bit ext4 has no snapshots support.
> if in the future, be it near or far, 64bit ext4 will have snapshots support with
> a new snapshot file format, then 64bit feature + snapshots feature will
> prevent the present (i.e. next) kernel from mouting that fs rw.
> which is exactly the same as older kernel will prevent mounting a 32bit ext4
> with snapshots rw.
>
> Amir.

Hi Amir,

I really am not comfortable with having two formats for snapshots.

Why not just do one 64 bit format and skip the 32 bit one?

This seems like a recipe for end user confusion and pain :)

thanks!

Ric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists